Why is requiring coverage for Pre Existing Illness a bad thing?

[plumbervol]

Why is requiring coverage for Pre Existing Illness a bad thing?

You know if the Repubs requirred this they might actually have a talking point?

At some point and time the morality of the Repubs has to be brought to question?

Without this coverage you are asking for more folks to go the Disabled route.... You  's understand this don't you?

[Sasquatch]

It is not a bad thing. BTW, here is the repubs plan. Maybe you need to catch up on some of the "talking points":

Does It Provide Sustainable Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions?
  
YES.  The GOP plan establishes Universal Access Programs to help guarantee access to affordable coverage, including for individuals with pre-existing conditions.
 
http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153389

Without this coverage you are asking for more folks to go the Disabled route.... You   's understand this don't you?

No. I don't think the dem 's understand this.

[plumbervol]

The plan on that Repubs site is pure spin. Universal Access Programs allows programs to kick you into something similar to COBRA and charge you a very high rate for coverage. It also allows cherry picking and dumping into this plan that (folks with chronic illness could not afford) lower rates on coverage for those without pre existing. The AMA and ADA(I am diabetic) says under the Republican plan(Lets face it if this Democratic plan is killed their will be NO Insurance reform Republicans will vote against their own bill. Republicans kiss Insurance Lobby ASS and their goal is to kill all reform) I can expect to be dropped by my plan and forced into a high rate of high risk coverage  that will in effect force me into Disability so that I can be covered. If nothing happens I can at least stay employed and buy coverage until my employer forces me out. With this plan myself and about an additional 1 million people can afford to stay in the workforce.


You idiots understand this don't you?

[plumbervol]

Lets talk abortion. The folks repubs spin is misleading. They allow open coverage. So even if the plan does not allow abortion with federal bucks people can buy abortion riders!! The democrat plan also will allow coverage if the participants wishes to pay for their own. You understand you can buy abortion insurance NOW  from privates don't you even if you are poor and on Medicaid/Medicare?

[plumbervol]

Does It Protect State Budgets?
You do know the plan encourages states to create systems like Tenn Care that went flat busted here in TN because of a lack of support from everybody from state legislators to the State Employees Union don't you?

[Sasquatch]

Of course the dem plan is not  . Remember, as Pelosi has said "we must pass the bill so that you can find out what is it".

[Shimmy]

The problem with insuring someone with pre-existing conditions is the people who will not get insurance until they get sick.  Here are some scenerios:

-  To keep people from just waiting to get sick before they get insurance, the government could charge a penalty for everyone who does not have health insurance.  As long as the penalty was more than the cost of health insurance, most people would be forced to get it.  By doing this the government will effectively be forcing you to carry insurance whether you want to or not.
-  If the government penalty is less than the cost of issurance, then a large number of people will just drop their insurance coverage until they need it.

Now you have a valid point if you are upset about insurance companies dropping people, who have been paying insurance their whole life, when they get sick.  To me that situation is a breach of contract and should be looked at.

[Sasquatch]

Remember Shimmy, in the dem   utopia everybody will have better healthcare with lower costs, and the government will not try to dictate your life in regards to said healthcare.

Of course we must pass the healthcare bill before we can really find out what is in it.  

BTW, insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to drop customers of theirs who become sick. I wonder how often this happens?

One last thing, which one currently refuses coverage more often:

private insurance or government-run insurance?

[Flummoxed Lummox]

The problem with insuring someone with pre-existing conditions is the people who will not get insurance until they get sick.

Bull /Kiffin/.

People can be required to be insured, just like states require people to have car insurance or when mortgage companies require homeowners insurance before you can get a mortgage.

Just another Republican red herring.

Here is the GOP health care plan:

1. Don't get sick.
2. If you get sick, die soon.

[Sasquatch]

Oh my word. Someone makes mention of someone else using a red herring while using a red herring themselves. Wow!  

To compare car or mortgage insurance with healthcare coverage is one of the biggest spins out there. This article sums up the differences quite nicely and makes me further realize that I don't want Obama anywhere near my healthcare:

Health insurance isn't car insurance, Mr. President

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Health-insurance-isnt-car-insurance-Mr-President--79575592.html

I challenge you to read the article FL. You might actually learn something. Such as the fact that states DO NOT require people to have car insurance.

[LTC]

AS FL stated...the only repug plan I have seen is Don't get sick or die early!

[Flummoxed Lummox]

To compare car or mortgage insurance with healthcare coverage is one of the biggest spins out there. This article sums up the differences quite nicely and makes me further realize that I don't want Obama anywhere near my healthcare:

Uh, no it is not spin.

I would rather have "Obama" near my health care than some fuc#ing health insurance company, whose only interest is making money and who couldn't care less about the health care of American citizens.